ReviewAdvances in ophthalmology practice and research
An updated systematic review of pharmacological treatments for presbyopia.
Review in Advances in ophthalmology practice and research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of pilocarpine for the treatment of presbyopia: a systematic review and meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of pilocarpine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution USP 1.25% w/v versus placebo ophthalmic solution for the treatment of presbyopia - A multicentric clinical trial.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2025Trial
- Yuvezzi™ (carbachol and brimonidine tartrate) dual-agent eyedrops: a new option for presbyopia.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Nitrogen-containing FDA-approved drugs in 2025: synthesis, significance and therapeutic applications.RSC advances · 2026Review
- Current Trends in Presbyopia Correction-A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Presbyopia, a common age-related condition affecting near vision, impacts over a billion people worldwide. The aim of this paper is to review the main reports and results of clinical trials, comparing the newest pharmacological treatment options for presbyopia, their mechanisms of action, and possible side effects. Main text: Pharmacological approaches, involving eye drops that target the underlying mechanisms of presbyopia, have gained growing interest. Two key pharmacological agents in this field are miotics and lens softeners. Miotics enhance near vision temporarily by creating a pinhole effect, though they may cause side effects and are under further investigation for long-term use with ongoing research also exploring the potential benefits of combining them with other drugs to improve outcomes and reduce adverse reactions. Lens softeners, on the other hand, aim to restore the flexibility of the lens, addressing one of the primary causes of presbyopia. Despite early trials, further development of lens softeners has been suspended. A notable advancement in this field is the recent FDA approval of 1.25% and 0.4% pilocarpine, a miotic agent, for presbyopia treatment. This milestone highlights the growing interest in pharmacological solutions for presbyopia, with several new drugs and their combinations currently being investigated for potential FDA approval. Conclusions: pharmacological treatments, particularly miotics like pilocarpine, represent a promising alternative to conventional methods for managing presbyopia. Continued research into these treatments, especially combinations of drugs, may offer more effective and convenient options for presbyopia patients in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.